Some Disaster Statistics

[BPSCG]

Federal disaster spending on certain selected natural and man-made disasters:

• Hurricane Andrew - $8.1 billion
• L.A. Earthquake - $12.5 billion
• 2004 Hurricanes - $13.5 billion
• September 11 Attacks - $22.0 billion
• Hurricanes Katrina/Rita - $122.5 billion

(Source - The Wall Street Journal, citing the Senate Budget Committee, August 29, 2006)

• Number of households displaced by Hurricane Katrina as of one month post-hurricane - about 600,000

(Source - The Brookings Institution)

A year later we keep hearing that there are still a lot of people living in government trailers and the mess still isn't cleaned up.

Where's the money going? By my calculations, 600,000 into 122 billion works out to about $200,000 per household.

If FEMA had simply handed out $200,000 checks to people, and advised them to buy or build new homes with the money ("just don't build in the area protected by the levees, because we're going to blow them up and allow Lake Pontchatrain to find its natural level"), you'd have 600,000 families living in their own paid-for homes today.

Where's the money going?

 

[daredelvis]

Well how about this?

After being filled with political cronies and turned into a joke by the first Bush administration FEMA was remade into a professional capable organization under the LEADERSHIP of Clinton. Fast forward to 2001 and the party starts all over again, and in go the cronies.

Could that be part of the reason?

Actually more to the point, I am guessing that a big part of that money is going towards rebuilding the infrastructure, not just paying for apartments. I also wonder how much is going to the industry (oil and such) to help them rebuild. I agree with you that some responsibility should be shouldered by people who live in areas that are flood prone, does that in your opinion also translate to people who chose to set up shop in such areas?

Daredelvis

 

[BPSCG]

Well how about this?

After being filled with political cronies and turned into a joke by the first Bush administration FEMA was remade into a professional capable organization under the LEADERSHIP of Clinton. Fast forward to 2001 and the party starts all over again, and in go the cronies.

Could that be part of the reason?

The reason? The reason for what? I asked where the money is going and you make some nasty accusations and trot them out as somehow being an answer to something I actually asked. Show me that the money is going into, oh, I dunno, the Dick Cheney Home For Lesbian Daughters of U.S. Vice Presidents Fund and we can talk.

Actually more to the point, I am guessing that a big part of that money is going towards rebuilding the infrastructure, not just paying for apartments.

And some of it went to putting homeless people into cruise ships. What I'm asking is, is there a breakdown somewhere showing where all this money is going?

I also wonder how much is going to the industry (oil and such) to help them rebuild. I agree with you that some responsibility should be shouldered by people who live in areas that are flood prone, does that in your opinion also translate to people who chose to set up shop in such areas?

Of course it does. Whether that shop is Bubba's Jen-Wine Bah-Yoo Crawdads or Exxon/Mobil. If you can't afford to rebuild after a disaster, and can't afford the insurance to pay for the rebuilding, then you can't afford to live there or run your business there.

As far as the infrastructure goes, again, blow up the levees, and rebuild the infrastructure that isn't under water. Give everyone else $200,000 apiece and tell them to rebuild wherever they want.

All of which is a derail. Where is the money going?

 

[Just thinking]

Ludwig, (You make me feel as if I'm conversing with the master -- I love it)

Does your $122 billion include private donations? If not, I believe there's much more to be accounted for.

 

[Darat]

Well apparently FEMA is distributing $2000 per household in cash or equivalent (debit cards) and course there are those stories about how some of the debit cards were being abused (I think we discussed it here a few months ago): http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46361

 

[Darat]

I've just found this blog with a google search so no idea about the site - it has some interesting facts and figures buried in it: http://politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=470

 

[EBU]

According to this, a good part of the money allocated for Katrina relief hasn't actually been spent. Not that this makes the statistics all that much better.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/walsh082306.html

 

[HeavyAaron]

Where's the money going? By my calculations, 600,000 into 122 billion works out to about $200,000 per household.

$200,000 per receiving household, and over $400 paid by every man, woman, and child on average in the US in taxes.

I'll never understand. Businesses and households, insure thyselves!

Aaron

 

[Just thinking]

Well ... it looks like the private sector gave over $3.5 billion as of February this year ... which is half a year ago, so I'll guess by now it's somewhat more. Compared to $122 billion it's not much, but it's not chicken scratch either.

 

[Apollyon]

Well how about this?

After being filled with political cronies and turned into a joke by the first Bush administration FEMA was remade into a professional capable organization under the LEADERSHIP of Clinton. Fast forward to 2001 and the party starts all over again, and in go the cronies.

Could that be part of the reason?

Daredelvis

Could it also be that some people gloss over history when it comes to FEMA under Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Floyd

Criticism of FEMA

The Hurricane Floyd disaster was followed by what many judged to be a very slow federal response. Fully three weeks after the storm hit, Jesse Jackson complained to FEMA Director James Lee Witt on his CNN program Both Sides Now, "It seemed there was preparation for Hurricane Floyd, but then came Flood Floyd. Bridges are overwhelmed, levees are overwhelmed, whole towns under water ... [it's] an awesome scene of tragedy. So there's a great misery index in North Carolina." Witt responded, "We're starting to move the camper trailers in. It's been so wet it's been difficult to get things in there, but now it's going to be moving very quickly. And I think you're going to see a — I think the people there will see a big difference [within] this next weekend!"[28]

3 weeks? Bush's FEMA didn't get 3 days before people were screaming for blood.

btw, Witt was a cronie of Clinton's from Arkansas as well. How did Witt get his emergency management experience? He was the owner of a construction company in Arkansas and a friend of Clinton's that Clinton appointed to be emergency management director for the state. By the time Katrina hit, Brown had just as much experience dealing with disasters, particularly hurricanes, as Witt did.

Katrina caused extraordinary circumstances. FEMA would have floundered no matter who was at the helm. To expect FEMA to have come in and performed miracles to save NOLA from extremely bad decisions and poor preparation by local and state government is ridiculous and a severe case of donning partisan spectacles.

 

[geni]

I'll never understand. Businesses and households, insure thyselves!

Aaron

122 billion is (assumeing we are usiing 1000 million as a billion) about 3.7 times Lloyd's of London total assets.

 

[HeavyAaron]

122 billion is (assumeing we are usiing 1000 million as a billion) about 3.7 times Lloyd's of London total assets.

I'll take your word for that, but it changes nothing.

If an area is dangerous, then premiums become very large, possibly prohibitively large. That's the market saying "LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOU IDIOT!"

Aaron

 

[Beerina]

Could it also be that some people gloss over history when it comes to FEMA under Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Floyd



3 weeks? Bush's FEMA didn't get 3 days before people were screaming for blood.

btw, Witt was a cronie of Clinton's from Arkansas as well. How did Witt get his emergency management experience? He was the owner of a construction company in Arkansas and a friend of Clinton's that Clinton appointed to be emergency management director for the state. By the time Katrina hit, Brown had just as much experience dealing with disasters, particularly hurricanes, as Witt did.

Katrina caused extraordinary circumstances. FEMA would have floundered no matter who was at the helm. To expect FEMA to have come in and performed miracles to save NOLA from extremely bad decisions and poor preparation by local and state government is ridiculous and a severe case of donning partisan spectacles.

That is correct. It was after a previous hurricane coupled with miserable FEMA performance that it was announced, "FEMA is a political spoils place where a political associate is rewared by being placed in charge. BUT NO MORE! Hereafter, FEMA will have a real manager in charge so they can respond to emergencies better."

Uhhh, yeah, right.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Could it also be that some people gloss over history when it comes to FEMA under Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Floyd

3 weeks? Bush's FEMA didn't get 3 days before people were screaming for blood.

The one reference Wikipedia has on this one is a post-Katrina NewsMax article. Any direct reference on the issue (did anyone complain about the immediate response or just the post disaster reconstruction, as those are two very different issues)?

 

[EBU]

As for how well FEMA worked under Witt, here's a link that reminds us that Witt's work at FEMA was praised by many republicans, including presidential candidate George W. Bush.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0101/011601fema.htm

 

[Crossbow]

In the case of Hurricane Floyd, it looks like the real problem was the scope of the disaster. It involved several states, mass evacuations over wide areas, along with widespread flooding, and post-disaster problems.

Whereas with Hurricane Katrina, Bush was too busy having his vacation to properly deal with the situation which made a bad thing far worse.

 

[HeavyAaron]

In the case of Hurricane Floyd, it looks like the real problem was the scope of the disaster. It involved several states, mass evacuations over wide areas, along with widespread flooding, and post-disaster problems.

Whereas with Hurricane Katrina, Bush was too busy having his vacation to properly deal with the situation which made a bad thing far worse.

Most people, myself included, would rather Bush not do much of anything. Do you have any reason to believe his direct involvement would have improved the job performed?

Aaron

 

[Grammatron]

In the case of Hurricane Floyd, it looks like the real problem was the scope of the disaster. It involved several states, mass evacuations over wide areas, along with widespread flooding, and post-disaster problems.

And Hurricane Katrina did not involve that?

 

[Apollyon]

Whereas with Hurricane Katrina, Bush was too busy having his vacation to properly deal with the situation which made a bad thing far worse.

Of course. Bush was responsible for the local and state governments poor preparations and response, and the failure of numerous administrations and local corruption to address the known problems with the levies. And it was all due to him being on vacation too.

 

[Apollyon]

The one reference Wikipedia has on this one is a post-Katrina NewsMax article. Any direct reference on the issue (did anyone complain about the immediate response or just the post disaster reconstruction, as those are two very different issues)?

Oddly enough, the media somehow neglected to get all up in arms concerning FEMA's failure to act in a timely manner during Hurricane Floyd and splash sensationalistic headlines all over the place. Very strange, that.

However, if you do a search on "hurricane floyd fema" you will find the occassional complaints related to some of FEMA's bungling of Floyd.